Whatsa(dark)matta'U - Atheist Nexus2015-03-31T22:37:54Zhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/whatsa-dark-matta-u?groupUrl=atheistswholovescience&commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A1913055&groupId=2182797%3AGroup%3A25044&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThe craziest theories do ofte…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-04-03:2182797:Comment:19130552012-04-03T21:19:06.269ZJim DePaulohttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/carver
<p>The craziest theories do often wind up to be the reality. When dealing with an unknown phenomenon the “known” science is not necessarily the best starting point – and may be the worst. The 11 dimensions (10 plus time) of space/.time posited in string theory gives me brain cramps – I've got 4 of them down pat the other 7 not so much, if at all.</p>
<p>The craziest theories do often wind up to be the reality. When dealing with an unknown phenomenon the “known” science is not necessarily the best starting point – and may be the worst. The 11 dimensions (10 plus time) of space/.time posited in string theory gives me brain cramps – I've got 4 of them down pat the other 7 not so much, if at all.</p> NC, Jessica sent me a link aw…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-04-03:2182797:Comment:19121032012-04-03T01:42:36.909ZTony Carrollhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/TonyCarroll
<p>NC, Jessica sent me a link awhile back, and I've been trying to view them as I can, but life seems to be conspiring against me lately. Haven't had chance to watch as much as I want. It is for courses at Yale online. Not accredited, of course, but alot of science lectures from the professors. At oyc.yale.edu. Some great stuff. Thanks again, Jessica. You rock. As do you, NC. Peace.</p>
<p>NC, Jessica sent me a link awhile back, and I've been trying to view them as I can, but life seems to be conspiring against me lately. Haven't had chance to watch as much as I want. It is for courses at Yale online. Not accredited, of course, but alot of science lectures from the professors. At oyc.yale.edu. Some great stuff. Thanks again, Jessica. You rock. As do you, NC. Peace.</p> Just...wow...
I'm gonna have…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-04-03:2182797:Comment:19121302012-04-03T00:40:46.729ZNontheist Centralhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/NontheistCentral
<p>Just...wow...</p>
<p>I'm gonna have to let that sink in. String theory is so WEIRD!! I haven't watched any Brian Cox yet really, but the clips I've seen are fascinating! I'll have to look into him some more. Thanks for the monkeys! lol</p>
<p>Just...wow...</p>
<p>I'm gonna have to let that sink in. String theory is so WEIRD!! I haven't watched any Brian Cox yet really, but the clips I've seen are fascinating! I'll have to look into him some more. Thanks for the monkeys! lol</p> No, it's not silly. I also fi…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-03-31:2182797:Comment:19094122012-03-31T18:09:42.495ZTony Carrollhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/TonyCarroll
<p>No, it's not silly. I also find it endlessly fascinating. Just the concepts alone make me crawl under the bed and whimper (lol)! Can't stop reading up on them, though. Or watching lectures on utube. Which, one I recently saw, (totally off subject) was one by Brian Cox on an idea espoused by Feynman, that all electrons are actually the same electron (wha...?) and what we see is just the same electron, but in a different energy level manifestation (double, no triple wha.....?) and by applying…</p>
<p>No, it's not silly. I also find it endlessly fascinating. Just the concepts alone make me crawl under the bed and whimper (lol)! Can't stop reading up on them, though. Or watching lectures on utube. Which, one I recently saw, (totally off subject) was one by Brian Cox on an idea espoused by Feynman, that all electrons are actually the same electron (wha...?) and what we see is just the same electron, but in a different energy level manifestation (double, no triple wha.....?) and by applying energy to any electron will cause all electrons everywhere at once to manifest a change from a lower state to a higher state, or the opposite. And when he says all, he means every electron in the entire universe at once, and possibly the multiverse (Okay, now monkeys are flying out my butt, and probably yours also. Don't mean to be rude, but wha......!!!). All joking aside NC, it is ideas like this that keep me coming back, whether I call bs, or not. So now, who's the silly one. lol. Thanks for the stimulating conversation. Be well.</p> My eye will be on the person…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-03-31:2182797:Comment:19094892012-03-31T18:00:23.884ZNontheist Centralhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/NontheistCentral
<p>My eye will be on the person who comes up with the craziest hypothesis. It's pretty well known that the crazy theories have just as much chance to be correct as the not-crazy ones.</p>
<p>Actually, Vera Rubin was called crazy when she introduced the concept of dark matter in a paper she published. People started trying to prove her wrong and ended up proving her right. There is a lot more out there than we see. </p>
<p>The solar wind model posed by Eugene Parker was ridiculed for years…</p>
<p>My eye will be on the person who comes up with the craziest hypothesis. It's pretty well known that the crazy theories have just as much chance to be correct as the not-crazy ones.</p>
<p>Actually, Vera Rubin was called crazy when she introduced the concept of dark matter in a paper she published. People started trying to prove her wrong and ended up proving her right. There is a lot more out there than we see. </p>
<p>The solar wind model posed by Eugene Parker was ridiculed for years before they were able to send a probe up that ended up proving him right. Scientists before him concocted the hypothesis, but it didn't go very far as they didn't have the means to test it at the time. Parker posed his model and stuck to his guns. People told him not to feel bad that his hypothesis was wrong and that lots of ideas fall flat on their faces. He responded with "We'll see what falls flat on its face!" If you want to hear him tell the story himself, watch the Sun episode of the BBC series The Planets. He tells it in such an awesome way. You can feel how satisfied he feels that he kept belief in his hypothesis. That's one of my favorite "vindication" stories.</p>
<p>Got totally off the subject. Sorry! lol</p> It's gravitational lensing th…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-03-31:2182797:Comment:19094832012-03-31T17:35:35.749ZNontheist Centralhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/NontheistCentral
<p>It's gravitational lensing that help scientists find the MACHOs. Just the simple concept of space/time warping due to an object floating by and making light change its path to get to its destination is fascinating to me! I know, so silly, right? lol</p>
<p>It's gravitational lensing that help scientists find the MACHOs. Just the simple concept of space/time warping due to an object floating by and making light change its path to get to its destination is fascinating to me! I know, so silly, right? lol</p> Okay, Einstiens general theor…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-03-31:2182797:Comment:19093542012-03-31T13:38:38.264ZTony Carrollhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/TonyCarroll
<p>Okay, Einstiens general theory of relativity. Got that. But are you suggesting galaxies of dark matter? Because all forms of EM radiation are lensed, not just photons, i.e., x-rays, gamma rays etc. Could it be Stromen (sp) spheres, which can be mistaken for the lensing effect. Do the hydrogen lines coincide?</p>
<p>Okay, Einstiens general theory of relativity. Got that. But are you suggesting galaxies of dark matter? Because all forms of EM radiation are lensed, not just photons, i.e., x-rays, gamma rays etc. Could it be Stromen (sp) spheres, which can be mistaken for the lensing effect. Do the hydrogen lines coincide?</p> Not only are the stars in the…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-03-30:2182797:Comment:19087532012-03-30T23:00:13.802ZMick Ohrberghttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/MickOhrberg
<p>Not only are the stars in the outer areas of galaxies rotating "too fast", but the dark matter also produces gravitational lensing - a feature/effect that indicates that dark matter indeed has mass (since gravity does influence photons, themselves virtually massless).</p>
<p>Not only are the stars in the outer areas of galaxies rotating "too fast", but the dark matter also produces gravitational lensing - a feature/effect that indicates that dark matter indeed has mass (since gravity does influence photons, themselves virtually massless).</p> Thanks. I can tell it fascina…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-03-30:2182797:Comment:19086802012-03-30T22:32:23.596ZTony Carrollhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/TonyCarroll
<p>Thanks. I can tell it fascinates you, as well. One question I have always pondered is it takes mass to measure anything, right? So if you can measure it, then that excludes that. But if you can't measure it, then what? I know I sure don't know. So (tongue firmly in cheek) I suggest radishes. Could be the answer, huh (lol)? And thanks for the history. Sometimes the search is more revealing than the answers. Thanks, and be well.</p>
<p>Thanks. I can tell it fascinates you, as well. One question I have always pondered is it takes mass to measure anything, right? So if you can measure it, then that excludes that. But if you can't measure it, then what? I know I sure don't know. So (tongue firmly in cheek) I suggest radishes. Could be the answer, huh (lol)? And thanks for the history. Sometimes the search is more revealing than the answers. Thanks, and be well.</p> I'm not up on the most recent…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-03-30:2182797:Comment:19088352012-03-30T21:56:58.461ZNontheist Centralhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/NontheistCentral
<p>I'm not up on the most recent discoveries, but I can offer a bit of history on dark matter, if you're interested.</p>
<p>Vera Rubin coined the term when she discovered that stars move at the same speed regardless of their distance from the center of a galaxy, which was counter to what they knew about the movement of celestial objects in a galaxy. When mapping the speeds of stars, the speed measured should "drop off" as you enter the outer rims of a galaxy, but it didn't. She said that in…</p>
<p>I'm not up on the most recent discoveries, but I can offer a bit of history on dark matter, if you're interested.</p>
<p>Vera Rubin coined the term when she discovered that stars move at the same speed regardless of their distance from the center of a galaxy, which was counter to what they knew about the movement of celestial objects in a galaxy. When mapping the speeds of stars, the speed measured should "drop off" as you enter the outer rims of a galaxy, but it didn't. She said that in order to explain that, there would have to be a lot more stuff in the galaxy than what we see. Since we can't see it, they called it dark matter. Since then, they've been looking for the "dark matter".</p>
<p></p>
<p>My favorite theory, though it didn't pan out, was the MACHO theory. Massive Compact Halo Objects were suspected to be the dark matter everyone was looking for. My understanding of them is that they are stars that basically fizzled out and didn't possess the right properties to explode or turn into black holes. The most apt description I heard was "star corpses". The MACHOs were detected, but found to have a minimal mass and could not account for the large amount of "stuff we couldn't see". </p>
<p></p>
<p>Last I heard on the neutrino front was that someone had successfully captured one, but was unable to determine whether it had any mass or not. I just did a quick search and the most <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nicola-guttridge/can-neutrinos-solve-the-m_b_1385160.html?just_reloaded=1" target="_blank">recent article</a> I could find on the subject says that's still the case. It seems that it's become the theory that they probably do have mass, but it's negligible, which means it's probably not what they're looking for. Wonder what's next on their list.</p>